Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the web (34) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one recess (16a-16c)" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes this limitation is the same as “at least one opening (16a-16c)” in lines 2-3.
Claim 4 recites the term “a dot.” Applicant uses the term “dot” to describe a protrusion on the hose clamp. However, the term “dot” is inconsistent with common terminology used in the art. The term dot does not give any indication of what constitutes the protrusion. Could a pyramid shape protrusion or square shape indentation be a dot? Examiner suggests amending “dot” to be “protrusion” or “dimple.”
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miessmer US 8875354.
Regarding Claim 1, Miessmer discloses a band clamp including a clamping band (10) with an outer band end (annotated Fig 1) and an inner band end (11), the outer band end including at least one opening (13, 14) and an ear-like tightening structure (15) with two radially out-ward extending legs (22 right, 22 left) and a web (23) interconnecting the outer ends of the legs and a tongue recess (annotated Fig 1), wherein the web includes a depression (24) to prevent buckling the inner band end including at least one hook (20, 21) and a tongue (17),
wherein, in a pre-assembled configuration of the band clamp, the at least one hook engages in the at least one recess (13, 14, Examiner assumes this is the same as “at least one opening”) in the outer clamping band end and a tip of the tongue engages in the tongue recess and the tongue is configured to be moved into the togue recess when the clamp is being tightened by narrowing the ear-like tightening structure,
wherein the inner band end includes a longitudinal rib (25) configured to be arranged below the depression of the web in the pre-assembled configuration, wherein at least an end portion (26) of said rib has a height continuously decreasing towards the tongue (Col 3 lines 27-29“shallow chamfer”) (Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
947
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Miessmer discloses wherein a longitudinal end of the rib (27) opposite to the end portion (26) of the rib (19) with decreasing height is configured to be arranged underneath one of the legs (22) of the ear-like tightening structure (15) in the untightened configuration (Miessmer, Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miessmer US 8875354.
Regarding Claim 2, Miessmer discloses the invention except wherein the height of the end portion of the rib decreases linearly over a length corresponding to at least twice a width of the rib.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the height of the rub decrease over a length corresponding to at least twice a width of the rib to promote gradual insertion of the band, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Miessmer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the height of the end portion of the rib decreases linearly over a length corresponding to at least one third of the ear-like tightening structure in the untightened configuration.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the higher of the end portion of the rib decrease linearly over a length corresponding to at least one thirds of the ear-like tightening structure to promote gradual insertion of the band, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Miessmer discloses the claimed invention except wherein the clamping band is degreased.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that is known in the art to have ungreased hose clamps to avoid slippage between the clamp and to avoid potential degradation of material due to grease.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clamping band of Miessmer be ungreased as known in the art to increase friction and create a stronger hold.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miessmer US 8875354 in view of Crouse US 20140237772.
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Miessmer discloses wherein the inner band end includes a shoulder portion where a width of the band is reduced from a full band width to a reduced width of the tongue (17) (Miessmer Fig 2).
Miessmer does not disclose wherein a dot protruding toward the outer band end is provided at the shoulder portion, wherein a position of the center of the dot in the longitudinal direction of the band set at a portion where the width of the band is larger than the reduced width of the tongue.
Crouse discloses a dimple (Crouse 44, Fig 2) on the top head floor (Crouse 40).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the band of Miessmer to include dimples as taught by Crouse to increase friction on the band and create a stronger connection for the clamp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights